Analysis of the structure and factorial invariance of the multidimensional environmental concern scale (MECS)

  1. María Amérigo 1
  2. Juan A. García 1
  3. Raquel Pérez-López 2
  4. Gabriela Cassullo 3
  5. Alberto Ramos 4
  6. Siva Kalyan Venumbaka 5
  7. Juan I. Aragonés 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
    info

    Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

    Ciudad Real, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05r78ng12

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  3. 3 Universidad de Buenos Aires (Argentina)
  4. 4 Universidad de Nuevo León (México)
  5. 5 Mamata Dental College (India)
Show affiliations +
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Year of publication: 2020

Volume: 32

Issue: 2

Pages: 275-283

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2019.281 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: Most studies focused on measuring environmental attitudes consider a one-dimension measure of pro/anti-environmentalism, such as NEP scale. Nevertheless, more recent research has shown that it seems more adequate to use a multidimensional approach when assessing complex relations among people and the natural environment, particularly on cultural basis. This paper aims to test the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Environmental Concern Scale (MECS) and, in particular, its factorial invariance. Method: Two studies were conducted. The first one assessed factorial invariance using two different approaches (multiple group confirmatory factor analysis – MGCFA, and alignment method) in a sample of 907 undergraduate students from Argentina, India, and Spain. A second study was conducted with 557 adults from Mexico and Spain, which also evaluated the criterion validity of the MECS’ scores. Results: The results obtained allowed to assure an acceptable degree of invariance of the MECS among all countries, and in terms of gender (Studies 1 and 2), age and education level (Study 2). Conclusions: Results provide support for a multidimensional approach when studying the environmental concern, showing that the environmentalism presents different associations depending on the analysed country. A deep analysis on different conceptualization of environmentalism will be promoted.

Bibliographic References

  • Ajdukovic, I., Gilibert, D., & Fointiat, V. (2019). Structural confirmation of the 24-item Environmental Attitude Inventory. Psyecology, 10, 14-26. doi:10.1080/21711976.2019.1586140
  • Amburgey, J. W., & Thoman, D. B. (2012). Dimensionality of the New Ecological Paradigm: Issues of factor structure and measurement. Environment and Behavior, 44, 235-256. doi:10.1177/0013916511402064
  • Amérigo, M., Aragonés, J. I., & García, J. A. (2012). Exploring the dimensions of environmental concern: An integrative proposal. Psyecology, 3, 353-365. doi:10.1174/217119712802845705
  • Amérigo, M., García, J. A., & Côrtes, P. L. (2017). Analysis of environmental attitudes and behaviors: An exploratory study with a sample of Brazilian university students. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20(3), 1-20. doi:10.1590/1809-4422asoc300r1v2032017
  • Amérigo, M., Palavecinos, M., García, J. A., Román, F., & TrizanoHermosilla, I. (2017). Effects of the social dominance orientation on environmental attitudes of Chilean university students. Revista de Psicología Social, 32, 136-163. doi:10.1080/02134748.2016.1248023
  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 495-508. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.919210
  • Bernaards, C. A., & Jennrich, R. I. (2005). Gradient projection algorithms and software for arbitrary rotation criteria in factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 676-696. doi:10.1177/0013164404272507
  • Byrne, B. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2017). The maximum likelihood alignment approach to testing for approximate measurement invariance: A paradigmatic cross-cultural application. Psicothema, 29, 539-551. doi:10.7334/psicothema2017.178
  • Chatterjee, D. P. (2008). Oriental disadvantage versus occidental exuberance: Appraising environmental concern in India-A case study in a local context. International Sociology. 23, 5-33. doi: 10.1177/0268580907084384
  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
  • Corral, V., Carrus, G., Bonnes, M., Moser, G., & Sinha, J. B. P. (2008). Environmental beliefs and endorsement of sustainable development principles in water conservation. Toward a new human interdependence paradigm scale. Environment and Behavior, 40, 703-725. doi:10.1177/0013916507308786
  • Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121-149. doi:10.1177/0748175610373459
  • Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The New Environmental Paradigm Scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3-18. doi:10.3200/joee.40.1.3-18
  • Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results: The “New Environmental Paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19. doi:10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  • Eom, K., Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Ishii, K. (2016). Cultural variability in the link between environmental concern and support for environmental action. Psychological Science, 27, 1331-1339. doi:10.1177/0956797616660078
  • Fox, J., & Bouchet-Valat, M. (2019). Rcmdr: R Commander. R package version 2.5-2. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ Rcmdr/index.html
  • Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n3.pdf
  • Geiger, S. M., Dombois, C., & Funke, J. (2018). The role of environmental knowledge and attitude: Predictors for ecological behavior across cultures? An analysis of Argentinean and German students. Umweltpsychologie, 22, 69-87. Retrieved from http://umps.de/php/artikeldetails.php?id=664
  • Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143-158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003
  • Hernández, B., Suárez, E., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Hess, S. (2012). The relationship between social and environmental interdependence as an explanation of proenvironmental behavior. Human Ecology Review, 19, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24707610
  • Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Revised and expanded. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Klain, S. C., Olmsted, P., Chan, K. M. A., & Satterfield, T. (2017). Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm. PLoS ONE 12:e0183962.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183962
  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224- 253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
  • Medina, V., DeRonda, A., Ross, N., Curtin, D., & Jia, F. (2019). Revisiting environmental belief and behavior among ethnic groups in the U.S. Frontiers in Psycholgy, 10, 629. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00629
  • Milfont, T. L. (2012). Cultural differences in environmental engagement. In S.D. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 181-200). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80-94. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
  • Moyano-Díaz, E., & Palomo-Vélez, G. (2014). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala Nuevo Paradigma Ecológico (NEP-R) en población chilena [Psychometric properties of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP-R) in Chilean population]. Psico, 45, 415-423. doi:10.15448/1980-8623.2014.3.17276
  • Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2018). Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 637-664. doi:10.1177/0049124117701488
  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r3_web.pdf
  • Pendergast, L. L., von der Embse, N., Kilgus, S. P., & Eklund, K. R. (2017). Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65-82. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002
  • Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
  • Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. R package version 1.8.12. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html
  • Reyna, C., Bressán, E., Mola, D., Belaus, A., & Ortiz, M. V. (2018). Validating the structure of the New Ecological Paradigm Scale among Argentine citizens through different approaches. Pensamiento Psicológico, 16, 107-118. doi:10.11144/Javeria nacali.PPSI16-1.vsne
  • Schultz, P. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0227
  • Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of humannature relations. In P. Schmuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-107. doi:10.1086/209528
  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723-743. doi:10.1177/0013916595276001
  • Tam, K.P., & Chan, H.W. (2017). Environmental concern has a weaker association with pro-environmental behavior in some societies than others: A cross-cultural psychology perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 213-223. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.09.001
  • Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149-157. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80168-9
  • Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33, 755-782. doi:10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
  • Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environment and Behavior, 10, 3-15. doi:10.1177/0013916578101001
  • White, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207. doi:10.1126/science.155.3767.1203
Data source: Dialnet